Survivorship of shoulder arthroplasty in young patients with osteoarthritis: an analysis of the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Background: The treatment of shoulder osteoarthritis in the young patient remains challenging. The higher functional demands and higher expectations of the young patient cohort are often coupled with increased failure and revision rates. Consequently, shoulder surgeons are faced with a unique challenge with implant selection. The aim of this study was to compare the survivorship and reasons for revision of 5 classes of shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged <55 years with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis by use of data from a large national arthroplasty registry.

Methods: The study population included all primary shoulder arthroplasty procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis in patients aged <55 years and reported to the registry between September 1999 and December 2021. Procedures were grouped into the following classes: total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), hemiarthroplasty resurfacing (HRA), hemiarthroplasty stemmed metallic head (HSMH), hemiarthroplasty stemmed pyrocarbon head (HSPH), and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and sex, to compare revision rates among groups.

Results: There were 1564 shoulder arthroplasty procedures in patients aged <55 years, of which 361 (23.1%) were HRA, 70 (4.5%) were HSMH, 159 (10.2%) were HSPH, 714 (45.7%) were TSA, and 260 (16.6%) were RTSA. HRA had a higher rate of revision than RTSA after 1 year (HRA = 2.51 (95% CI 1.30, 4.83), P = .005), with no difference prior to that time. In addition, HSMH had a higher rate of revision than RTSA for the entire period (HR, 2.69 [95% confidence interval, 1.28-5.63], P = .008). There was no significant difference in the rate of revision for HSPH and TSA when they were compared with RTSA. Glenoid erosion was the most common cause of revision for HRA (28.6% of revisions) and HSMH (50%). Instability/dislocation was the leading cause of revision for RTSA (41.7%) and HSPH (28.6%), and for TSA, the majority of revisions were for either instability/dislocation (20.6%) or loosening (18.6%).

Conclusion: These results should be interpreted within the context of the lack of availability of long-term data on RTSA and HSPH stems. RTSA outperforms all implants regarding revision rates at mid-term follow-up. The high early dislocation rate associated with RTSA, as well as the lack of revision options available to address this, indicates that careful selection of patients and a greater appreciation of anatomic risk factors are needed in the future.